Yardbarker: Frank Robinson

Powerless Mets Playing Old-Fashioned Baseball

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:17:25 -0500

The Mets are playing like the Baltimore Orioles. Not the slugging Boog Powell/Frank Robinson Baltimore Orioles, but the 1890s Baltimore Orioles - the one with Wee Willie Keeler in right, John McGraw at third, Hughie Jennings at short and Kid Gleason at second. In 1895, that team finished in first place in the National League (beating [...]

This is just like the time Omar Minaya was mistaken for Carrot Top

Mon, 18 May 2009 10:35:41 -0500

What's even stranger about this is Frank Robinson was just wrapping up a devastatingly accurate Bill Cosby "Puddin' Pops" impression when the photo was taken. Special thanks to College Game Balls for the pic.

Frank Robinson Much Prefers the Cincinnati Reds to the Baltimore Orioles

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:49:44 -0500

And could you blame him? Even though he had great years with the Orioles and went on to manage the club, Frank Robinson was drafted by and had longevity with the Cincinnati Reds. Can’t knock him for that, particularly since this video indicates that he really didn’t want to leave the ‘Nati. His comments about the [...]

MLB Athlete Number 20 - Frank Robinson

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:36:16 -0500

Several good choices for the best MLB athlete to ever wear the jersey number 20. But you can only pick one right? My pick is Frank Robinson. Frank Robinson played 21 seasons in the major leagues, spent primarily with the Reds and Orioles. Over those 21 seasons in the bigs, Robinson achieved the ...

The Hall of Fame Case for Ron Santo (Part 2 of 3)

Sat, 06 Dec 2008 03:37:35 -0500

On Monday December 8th, the Baseball Hall of Fame will announce the voting results of the Veterans Committee.A In a three part series, guest columnist and reader, "Dying Cub Fan" takes a look at the candidacy of former Cubs third basemen, Ron Santo. We ran this piece two years ago, but it's lost in Internet limbo and well, Santo deserves it, so we're running it again. Plus, the voting process has changed this year, as there are only 10 players for the committee to consider, so here's hoping this is the year.A You can join the revolution on Facebook as well.

Brooks Robinson

In 1964, third basemen won the MVP award in both the American League and the National League. Brooks Robinson won in the AL, playing for an Oriole team that won 97 games and finished third, and Ken Boyer won in the NL, playing for the Cardinals, who won 93 games and the pennant. The Cubs won 76 games and finished 8th. Santo had a better year than either Robinson or Boyer and finished 8th in MVP balloting. 6

RBI

OBP

SLG

OPS+

Boyer

628

100

185

119

.295

.365

.489

130

Santo

592

185

114

.312

.398

.564

164

Robinson

612

194

118

.317

.368

.521

145

Santo had more home runs, a higher on-base percentage and a higher slugging percentage than either Robinson or Boyer. Santo won the Gold Glove over Boyer, who had won it the previous five years. Playing for teams that scored significantly more runs and had higher team on-base percentages than the Cubs, both Robinson and Boyer had more RBI than Santo; Robinson led the AL in RBI and Boyer led the NL (Santo finished second).

It is widely acknowledged that the MVP award does not always go the best player in the league, but it tends to go to players on teams that either win the pennant or come close. While there have been exceptions, very good players on mediocre or bad teams tend not to do as well in MVP voting as similar players on good teams. In the 1960s, no MVP winner in either league played for a team that won fewer than 90 games.7 The Cubs won 90 games or more once in that entire decade, in 1969 (with 92 wins).

Robinson finished in the top ten in MVP voting seven times in his career. Santo finished in the top ten four times. Some of this disparity can probably attributed to the fact that Santo's teams were, by and large, much worse than Robinson's. For example, both the Orioles and Cardinals were significantly better in 1964 than the Cubs were, at nearly every position one examines other than third base. The Orioles, aside from Brooks Robinson, had two other Hall of Famers in Luis Aparicio and Robin Roberts, as well as a wealth of very good young players, including pitchers Milt Pappas, Wally Bunker and Dave McNally. Boog Powell, at 22, was probably the best offensive player that the Orioles had; despite playing only 134 games, he had 39 homers, 99 rbi and an OPS+ of 176. The Cardinals, aside from Boyer, had Lou Brock and Bob Gibson, both Hall of Famers, and also had Ray Sadecki, Curt Simmons, Bill White, Curt Flood, Tim McCarver and Dick Groat. The Cubs had Santo, Billy Williams and Ernie Banks, although Banks was no longer a great player in 1964 (Banks' OPS+ that year was actually below that of Norm Siebern, the Orioles' first baseman). Larry Jackson did win 23 games for the Cubs that year, although as a whole the Orioles' and Cardinals' pitching was much better than the Cubs'. Both Boyer and Robinson were fine players, and I don't mean to suggest that they were undeserving of their MVP awards. However, Santo was better than they were in 1964.

1964 was by far Robinson's best year. He never came close to being as productive at the plate again. Santo, on the other hand, followed his 1964 season with three consecutive seasons that were nearly as good as his 1964 season, having OPS+ years of 146 in 1965, 161 in 1966 and 153 in 1967. Robinson never had another year where his OPS+ exceeded 125. Aside from 1964 and the three seasons cited above, Santo had an OPS+ greater than 125 in 1963, 1968, 1969 and 1972.

Santo was a significantly better batter than Robinson. He had far more power, walked a lot more and had a higher career batting average. Santo's peak offensive value was considerably higher than Robinson's, and Santo's peak was longer and more sustained. Santo hit far more home runs in 15 seasons (342) than Robinson did in 23 (268). Santo could also be counted on to drive in more runs in a given season, to hit for a higher batting average, to walk far more often and to score more runs.

Defensively, the statistics support the conclusion that Robinson was better than Santo.8 Robinson committed fewer errors and was involved in many more double plays. Although their career range factors are quite similar, Robinson had more years with high range factors than Santo (although Santo's peak years in terms of range factor, 3.56 in 1966 and 3.60 in 1967, exceeded Robinson's highs of 3.49 in 1967 and 3.43 in 1974 by a wide margin). Robinson won 16 Gold Gloves; Santo won five. However, Gold Glove voting is probably not a definitive measure of fielding prowess; in all probability it is less reliable than MVP voting for making definitive assessments about a player's worth. Many players have won more than one Gold Glove9, and there seems to have been a tendency for voters to award them based on past reputation. While I don't doubt that Robinson was an excellent defensive third baseman late into his career, I have some trouble believing he deserved at least the Gold Gloves he won in the 1970s, when younger players such as Don Money, Graig Nettles and Aurelio Rodriguez could not pry the award out of his hands until the Orioles finally realized that his bat precluded him from continuing as a regular following the 1975 season.10 However, Robinson was generally regarded as perhaps the best defensive third baseman of all time.

Robinson was a better defensive third baseman than Santo, and was perhaps the best of all time defensively. However, I have trouble seeing how Robinson's defensive superiority can offset Santo's clear and substantial advantages on the offensive side, particularly in light of the fact that Santo was a very good defensive third baseman.11

Let's compare two players who played second base in the Hall of Fame: Bill Mazeroski (career OPS+ of 84) and Nellie Fox (career OPS+ of 94). Mazeroski won 8 gold gloves; Fox won 3. Fox led the league in hits 4 times, led the league in triples once and won an MVP award; Mazeroski never won an MVP and never led the league in any offensive category, other than one year when he led the league in intentional walks. Fox scored 100 runs or better 4 times and finished in the top ten in the league in runs scored seven times; Mazeroski never scored more than 71 runs in a season and never finished in the top ten. Mazeroski's career OBP was .299; Fox's was .348. Mazeroski is regarded as perhaps the finest double play man of all time, but can anyone make a reasonable argument that he was a better player than Fox? Both were relatively light hitters (Fox hit .288 lifetime, Mazeroski hit .260 and their career slugging percentages are quite close, even though Mazeroski hit 100 more home runs), although Fox was clearly a more productive offensive player.

Consider another example from players who played shortstop: Cal Ripken had a career OPS+ of 112 while Ozzie Smith had a career OPS+ of 87. Ozzie Smith clearly had much more range than Ripken and is generally acclaimed as one of the best defensive shortstops ever (winning thirteen Gold Gloves), a claim never made about Ripken (although he did win two Gold Gloves). Which one was the better player? How much does Smith's defensive superiority offset Ripken's clear offensive superiority? I would think that most major league managers and GMs, if they had to choose, would take Ripken over Smith and Fox over Mazeroski without losing too much sleep over it, preferring a good defender with good offensive value over a superlative defender with marginal offensive value. Santo's career OPS+ was 125, Robinson's 104. Do Robinson's defensive advantages outweigh Santo's offensive advantages? For me, I don't see how they can; the offensive deficit is too large. Even factoring in his 1964 MVP year, Robinson was a fair offensive player (and, at times, actually a below-average one), a .270 hitter with some power who did not walk often. Santo was considerably better at the plate. I don't see the defense making up the difference.

Robinson's teams did far better than Santo's, winning five division titles, four pennants (including one in 1966, before there was a division split) and two World Series. All told, Robinson played in 9 postseason series. Robinson was World Series MVP in 1970; in that series, he made several legendary defensive plays. There is no question that this should be given some weight, and should factor in Robinson's favor. The question is, how much? Brooks Robinson was unquestionably an integral part of the Orioles' success. However, the Orioles did not win a pennant until they acquired Frank Robinson in 1966, and did not win another during Brooks' career after they traded Frank away after the 1971 season. The Orioles in the late 60s and early 70s won for a lot of reasons: great pitching (they led the league in team ERA in 1969, 1970 and 1971), great offense (they had team OPS+ numbers of 122 in 1966, 119 in 1969, 114 in 1970 and 122 in 1971 and led the league in runs scored in each of those years except 1969, when they finished second), great defense and great managing. Brooks Robinson's OPS+ numbers in the four years Baltimore won the pennant (1966, 1969, 1970 and 1971) were below the Orioles' team OPS+ numbers in each year except 1966, when his OPS+ was 124 and the team's was 122. In 1969 he batted .234 with an OPS+ of 92. At least three or four Oriole players in each of those years were more valuable offensively than Brooks Robinson. Aside from Frank Robinson, those Oriole teams had superb leadoff hitters in Curt Blefary and Don Buford and significant power from Boog Powell. Merv Rettenmund, Paul Blair and Davey Johnson also contributed more offensively than Brooks Robinson.

There are a lot of players who played on pennant winners and World Series champions who are not in the Hall of Fame. Although playing on a winner should be given some weight, the fact that someone played on a winner is not sufficient, in and of itself, to put someone in the Hall of Fame. For example, there were many fine players on the 1950s Yankees, such as Gil McDougald, who are not in and should not be in. Similarly, performance in a World Series or playoff series should be given some weight, but no one will put Joe Rudi, Tommie Agee or Graig Nettles in the Hall of Fame simply because of outstanding defensive play in a World Series. I would agree that in an otherwise marginal case, factors such as play for a pennant winner or post-season performance can make a difference in determining whether someone should make the Hall of Fame, but I don't think either Robinson or Santo is an otherwise marginal case. Santo never played for a division winner or pennant winner, but, again, how much of that is his fault? As for giving Robinson an "edge" over Santo, I don't see how a great performance in one World Series can tip the scales in Robinson's favor when Santo's entire career was better. If you give credit for Robinson hitting .429 in the 1970 World Series, shouldn't you also take away credit for his hitting .053 in the 1969 World Series, which the Orioles lost? How much credit do you give to Robinson based on the fact he played on a great team? While the Cubs had improved from 1964 and were competitive in the late '60s and early '70s, the Orioles were markedly better than the Cubs at that time (the Orioles averaged 106 wins a year from 1969 through 1971). I do not see Robinson's presence on these teams making up the difference that Santo's offensive numbers give him.

None of this is meant in disrespect of Brooks Robinson. Bill James in 2001 ranked him as the 91st best player of all time, and he is deservedly in the Hall of Fame. However, Santo was a better player.

Traynor and Lindstrom

In his 1994 book on the Hall of Fame, Bill James pointed out that throughout baseball history, Hall of Famers have accounted for approximately 10% of all at bats. He demonstrated that this was true not only when examining baseball history as a whole, but also when examining individual years and decades, with the notable exception being the period from 1925-35, with the percentage of Hall of Fame at bats being over 20% in each year during that period except one and being as high as 24% in 1929. James argues from these numbers that the players in those years are "disproportionately represented in the Hall of Fame, overrepresented by about 100 percent. There are about twice as many players from that generation in the Hall of Fame as there are from any other."12 Part of this is probably due to the unusually high batting statistics from that era. However, as discussed briefly above, many of those numbers were not that remarkable in the context in which they occurred. Lindstrom and Traynor, neither of whom was an elite offensive player when compared to his contemporaries, are from that era. Traynor was elected by the BBWAA in 1948. Lindstrom was selected by the Veteran's Committee during the 1970s, and has proved to be a highly controversial choice, one that bas been cited as evidence of incompetence and cronyism by the Veteran's Committee during those years.13 As was shown above, neither Lindstrom or Traynor stood out amongst their contemporaries the way Santo did.

The conditions under which Lindstrom and Traynor played were very different from those in place during Santo's career. First, the level of play was more competitive in 1968 than it was in 1930. For one thing, in 1930, major league baseball was still whites only; in the 60s there were many very talented African-American and Latin ballplayers in the National League. Also, many of the hitting-friendly ballparks in existence in 1930, such as Ebbets Field, the Baker Bowl in Philadelphia and Sportsman's Park, were no longer in the National League, replaced by parks that were much more favorable to pitchers, such as Dodger Stadium, the Astrodome, Candlestick Park and Busch Stadium, with deeper fences and more foul territory. Gloves were better in the 1960s. Night baseball did not exist in 1930. Relief pitchers were not used as effectively in 1930 as they came to be used later. As described above, the mid- to late-sixties also featured an enlarged strike zone and elevated mounds. Lindstrom and Traynor did not compete in the environment Santo did; in their era, hits and runs were far more plentiful and worth less. The inflated batting statistics of that era, and their superficial appeal, have led to overrepresentation of players from that era in the Hall of Fame.

It is far easier to say that Santo fits within the top 10% of players playing regularly (to whom the number of total at bats in any period can be attributed) during his years in the game than it is to argue that Traynor or Lindstrom belongs in the top 10% during their time. Having said that, Traynor's case for being in the Hall of Fame is a decent one even though Santo's offensive numbers (other than batting average) relative to his contemporaries were better. Lindstrom's case is much less strong. Although Lindstrom had a few good years, he simply did not have enough of them and, even in his best years, was not at the level of Santo's best years.

Bill James on Fred Lindstrom: "As an offensive player he was by no means one of the top players of his time, and as a defensive player he was so outstanding that he was shifted to the outfield in mid-career. His selection to the Hall of Fame, while it ignores players like Ken Boyer, Ron Santo, Ed Yost and Stan Hack, was a bad joke." (1988 Historical Baseball Abstract, p. 368). Lindstrom was only a regular for seven seasons. He did not play after he was 30, and did not play as a regular after he was 27.

A great deal of the appeal of Traynor and Lindstrom to Hall of Fame selectors would seem to have come from their batting averages. Traynor and Lindstrom each had a higher career batting average than Santo. Traynor hit .320 for his career. During his career, the league batting average was .295, meaning that his career average was 8.47% higher than the league average. Lindstrom hit .311 for his career. During his career, the league batting average was .290, making his career average 7.24% higher than the league average. Santo hit .277 for his career. During Santo's career, the league batting average was .268, giving him a career average that was 3.36% higher than the league average. A player who had a batting average that was 8.47% or 7.24% better than a league average of .268 would hit .290 or .287, respectively. A player who had a batting average that was 3.36% higher than a league batting average of .295 or .290 would hit .305 or .300, respectively. Of course, it would be wrong to assert that, had Traynor or Lindstrom played in the 1960s, or had Santo played in the '20s and '30s, such averages represent how they would have performed, because we cannot know that. However, as noted above, a key measure of a player is the player's performance relative to his peers at the time he played. While there are those who would argue that a .320 career batting average is impressive under any circumstances, it clearly does not represent the same level of achievement in the era that Traynor played as it would have in the era that Santo played. Furthermore, although Traynor and Lindstrom were better relative to their contemporaries in terms of batting average than Santo was relative to his contemporaries, when on base percentage and power are factored in, Santo has a distinct advantage, as the OPS+ numbers above show.

References

6 Dick Allen, who also played third base that year, also had a better year at the plate than Robinson or Boyer, with an OPS+ of 162 in his rookie season.

7 Cf. http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1409616.html, an article by Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus.

8 Here I insert the obligatory caveat concerning defensive statistics: that they may well be driven by factors that are not measurable and that are beyond the control of the player. For example, an infielder's range factor may vary due to whether he plays on a team with a ground ball pitching staff, and the number of double plays of an infielder may vary due to the skill of teammates.

9 See http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/gold_glove_nl.shtml#multi.

10 By contrast, when Santo won his first Gold Glove in 1964, he beat out Ken Boyer, who had won the five previous Gold Gloves at third base in the NL and who was, as noted above, awarded the 1964 NL MVP. That Santo knocked off a defending repeat winner is perhaps a particular validation of his worth as a fielder in 1964.

11 Santo shares the NL records for third basemen for having led the league in putouts and assists 7 times each. Santo shares the major league record for having led the league in double plays 6 times and having led the league in chances 9 times.

12 The Politics of Glory at 251-52. A similar bias has been identified in James Vail's book, The Road to Cooperstown: A Critical History of Baseball's Hall of Fame Selection Process, McFarland (2001), in which the author examined the statistics of players who met the Hall of Fame's ten-year service requirement and who had been elected. Players from the 1920-45 era currently comprise about 33% of all Hall of Fame members.

13 Lindstrom was selected when Bill Terry and Waite Hoyt, two former teammates, were on the Veteran's Committee. See The Road to Cooperstown at 107. See also The Politics of Glory at 162-171. During the time Bill Terry and Frank Frisch served on the Veteran's Committee in the late 60s and early 70s, several players were elected whose Hall of Fame credentials were extremely weak, but who had played with Frisch or Terry on the Giants or the Cardinals.

The Hall of Fame Case for Ron Santo (Part 1 of 3)

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:09:56 -0500

"Red Sox Nation: In your opinion, who's the best player not in the HOF?
Bill James: Ron Santo"

10/27/04 Interview with Bill James on RedSoxNation.Net, 1
http://www.redsoxnation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=11048

Ron Santo has a meritorious case for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. There are currently thirteen third basemen2 in the Hall of Fame: Frank "Home Run" Baker, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Jimmy Collins, Ray Dandridge, Judy Johnson, George Kell, Freddy Lindstrom, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt, Pie Traynor and Jud Wilson (who was inducted in 2006). When compared to the ten major league third basemen currently in the Hall of Fame (leaving aside, for purposes of this discussion, the three Negro League players, Johnson, Dandridge and Wilson), Santo's offensive numbers fit squarely in the middle of that group. The offensive numbers demonstrate that Santo was better than five of the major league third basemen currently in the Hall of Fame. The numbers indicate that Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, Baker and Boggs (in roughly that order) were better than Santo. Santo has a clear edge on everyone else.

During his career Ron Santo was a nine-time All-Star. He finished in the top ten in MVP voting four times. He had the fifth highest RBI total of all major league players during the 1960s (topped only by Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Harmon Killebrew and Frank Robinson). During that period no player in the National League drew more walks. 3 He won five consecutive Gold Gloves at third base, and led NL third basemen in putouts, assists, chances and double plays in many seasons. He was among the league leaders in on base percentage and slugging percentage throughout the 1960s; he finished in the top 10 in both categories in his league in every season from 1964 through 1967. He hit more home runs in his career than any third baseman currently in the Hall of Fame other than Mike Schmidt and Eddie Mathews. He combined power and defense to a degree that was unprecedented for third basemen. He coupled that with an ability to draw walks that added value in a manner that has often gone unappreciated.

In his 2001 Historical Baseball Abstract Bill James ranked Santo as the 6th best third baseman of all time; he ranked Robinson 7th. He ranked Traynor as the 15th best third baseman (behind Stan Hack, Darrell Evans, Sal Bando, Ken Boyer, Graig Nettles and Al Rosen), Collins 17th (after Ron Cey), Kell 30th and Lindstrom 43rd.

Santo fits squarely within the middle of the group of third basemen in the Hall of Fame. Santo was arguably the best player at his position in the major leagues for an extended period of time, a dominant hitter and a great defender. He should be in the Hall of Fame.

Understanding Context

One of the difficult things in evaluating players is determining what statistics mean in different eras. Yet understanding the context in which Santo played is important to understanding how good he was, and understanding what the game was like during the time Collins played, or when Lindstrom or Traynor played, is important to understanding what their numbers mean. Santo never hit .379 like Lindstrom did in 1930, or .366 like Traynor did that same year. In what was an off-year for him, he hit .246 in 1968, the "Year of the Pitcher," with 26 homers (6th in the league) and 98 rbi (2nd) when the league batting average was .243, the average team scored 3.43 runs a game and the league ERA was 2.98. In 1930, the league batting average in the NL was .303, the average team scored 5.68 runs per game and the league ERA was 4.97. In 1930, Bill Terry hit .401, Babe Herman hit .393, Chuck Klein hit .386 and Lefty O'Doul hit .383;4 Lindstrom's high batting average that year was fifth in the league, Traynor's ninth. In 1930, the New York Giants' team batting average was .319; the Cubs had a team on base percentage of .378 and a team slugging percentage of .481. The 106 rbi that Lindstrom had in 1930 did not rank in the top ten in the league that year; Traynor's 119 rbi that year were 8th in the league. In Lindstrom's other big year, 1928, the average team scored 4.70 runs per game, the league batting average was .281 and the league ERA was 3.99. In 1967, the NL batting average was .249, the average team scored 3.84 runs per game and the league ERA was 3.38. Santo hit .300 with 31 homers (3rd in the league) and 98 rbi (7th) that year. Santo and Lindstrom finished in the top ten in batting average the same number of times, three. Traynor, Lindstrom and Collins all played before the color line was broken. Traynor, Lindstrom and Collins did not have to face Koufax, Drysdale, Marichal, Gibson, et al. in the mid-to-late sixties, or contend with night baseball. Santo did.

In January 1963, the strike zone was expanded by rule. After 1968, a year in which the American League batting champion hit .301, rule changes were instituted lowering the height of the mound from fifteen inches to ten and reverting the strike zone to its 1962 dimensions. In the 2001 Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill James described the 1963 strike zone change in this way:

The effect of this redefinition was dramatic. The action was taken . . . because there was a feeling that runs (and in particular home runs) had become too cheap. Roger Maris' breaking Babe Ruth's single-season home run record contributed to that feeling. The thinking was that, by giving the pitchers a few inches at the top and bottom of the strike zone, they could whittle the offense down just a little bit.

The action cut deeper than anticipated. Home run output in 1963 dropped by ten percent, and total runs dropped by 12%, from 4.5 per game to 3.9. Batting averages dropped by twelve points. Baseball's second dead ball era had begun. (2001 Historical Baseball Abstract, p. 249)

James has also noted that some teams (the most notable example being the Dodgers) took advantage of the fact that mound height was not closely regulated during the '60s to build mounds even higher than the fifteen inches the rules then permitted, giving power pitchers even more of an advantage. Santo's best years coincided exactly with this period.5

One of the best ways of trying to assess the historical context of a player's numbers is to examine that player's performance relative to his contemporaries. Of readily available statistics, the OPS+ stat does this pretty well. The correlation of OPS (compiled by adding a player's on base percentage to his slugging percentage) to a player's ability to produce runs has been well demonstrated. OPS+ measures a player relative to the OPS league average on a scale based on 100. A 100 OPS+ in any year is the league average. When evaluated in terms of OPS+, as will be shown below, Santo stands out. Another way of evaluating historical context is by using Win Shares. Here as well Santo stands out.

As will be shown below, Santo had a much higher level of peak offensive performance than every major league Hall of Fame third baseman other than Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, Baker and Boggs. In this analysis, he is very close to Baker and Boggs, however, closer to them than the third basemen below him are to him. His career numbers stack up solidly in the middle of all major league Hall of Fame third basemen as well.

Career Statistics

Here are the career offensive statistics for the ten major league Hall of Fame third basemen (with Santo included) ranked by career OPS+:

RBI

OBP

SLG

OPS+

Schmidt[1972-1989]

1506

2234

408

548

1595

.267

.380

.527

147

Mathews[1952-1968]

1509

2315

354

512

1453

.271

.376

.509

143

Brett[1973-1993]

1583

3154

665

137

317

1595

.305

.369

.487

135

Baker[1908-1922]

887

1838

315

103

987

.307

.363

.442

135

Boggs[1982-1999]

1513

3010

578

118

1014

.328

.415

.443

130

Santo[1960-1974]

1138

2254

365

342

1331

.277

.362

.464

125

Collins[1895-1908]

1055

1999

352

116

983

.294

.343

.409

113

Kell[1943-1957]

881

2054

385

870

.306

.367

.414

111

Lindstrom[1924-1936]

895

1747

301

103

779

.311

.351

.449

110

Traynor[1920-1937]

1183

2416

371

164

1273

.320

.362

.435

107

Robinson[1955-1977]

1232

2848

482

268

1357

.267

.322

.401

104

Santo is behind only Schmidt and Mathews in career home runs. He ranks behind Schmidt, Mathews, Brett and Robinson in career RBI, but Brett and Robinson each had nearly 2,000 more career at bats than Santo.

Peak Value

Santo put up more big years, relative to his contemporaries, than did Robinson, Collins, Kell, Lindstrom or Traynor. What follows is an evaluation of how Santo and the ten current major league third basemen in the Hall of Fame performed offensively when compared to their contemporaries, using the OPS+ statistic on a season-by-season basis.

Here are the ten major league Hall of Fame third basemen (with Santo included) listing number of seasons with an OPS+ over 110, 130 and 150 (or 10%, 30% and 50% better than league average):

Seasons Over 110

Seasons Over 130

Seasons Over 150

Schmidt

Mathews

Brett

Boggs

Santo

Baker

Collins

Lindstrom

Robinson

Kell

Traynor

As this table shows, Santo had more big years, relative to his contemporaries, than did Lindstrom, Collins, Traynor, Robinson or Kell. From 1964 though 1967, Santo's numbers stacked up favorably with the very best offensive players in the National League; at the same time he was winning Gold Gloves at a key defensive position. During the '60s, Santo was third in the entire National League in RBI, with 937; the only players with more were Aaron and Mays (Frank Robinson had more as well, but he was traded to the AL after the 1965 season). Santo was a dominant offensive player for a sustained period, something that cannot be said of Lindstrom, Collins, Traynor, Robinson or Kell. Robinson had one year when he performed at such a level (1964).

Kell, Traynor and Lindstrom were similar players offensively: despite high batting averages, none of them had much power and none of them walked very much. Santo's power and plate discipline give him a clear edge over these three players.

The Bill James Win Shares analysis supports the conclusion that Santo was a dominant force in the '60s, having at least 30 win shares in 4 consecutive years (1964-1967). According to James, a 30 win share season is "in general, an MVP-candidate season." (2001 Historical Baseball Abstract, p. 335). Santo never won an MVP, but a reasonable argument can be made that he was the best player in his league in several years, particularly in 1964 and 1966. Neither Traynor nor Kell ever had a 30 win share season. Robinson, Collins and Lindstrom each had one.

References

1 Bill James has written several times on Santo's merits for Hall of Fame induction. See James, The Politics of Glory: How Baseball's Hall of Fame Really Works, Macmillan (1994) at 343-44; James, 2001 Historical Baseball Abstract, Free Press (2001) at 541-42. For another piece supporting Santo, see http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1514118.html.

2 See list at http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/pos&3B.htm. There are fewer third basemen in the Hall of Fame than there are players from any other position, even after giving effect to the induction of four third basemen in the past ten years (three from the major leagues and one, Jud Wilson, from the Negro Leagues).

3 Decade stats courtesy of http://www.baseballimmortals.net/decades/decades.shtml.

4 Klein and O'Doul were teammates on the Phillies in 1930. Their high batting averages helped the Phillies to a last place finish with a 52-102 record. The Phillies scored 944 runs (over six runs per game), but gave up an astronomical 1199 runs (nearly eight runs per game).

5 For an interesting take on the large strike zone era, see http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/re-imagining-the-big-zone-sixties-part-1-1963-1965/; and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/re-imagining-the-big-zone-sixties-part-2-1966-1968/.

Hometowns: Jim Riggleman Comes Home

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:47:26 -0500

After the Nationals parted ways with Frank Robinson after the 2006 season, I personally called Stan Kasten to throw out a name that may not have been on his lista?"Jim Riggleman. Stan said that Jim was already on his short list, but as we know the Nationals got Manny Acta so it was great [...]

Bob Costas' Second Town Hall Meeting Will Look Into Baseball, Air Day After ASG

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:24:47 -0500

The day after the MLB All Star is a dreaded day for mainstream media and bloggers alike. There is not a damn thing going on and I think last year I did an entire day of create the captions (not true, but not a bad idea). Well this year on that day we get a special treat. On the heels of his "State of Sports Media" town hall success, Bob Costas will host a "State of Baseball" one on Wednesday, July 16th on HBO. Via the Orlando Sentinel.... HBO's Costas Now will address...

FSN's Great Summer Schedule Adds "Baseball's Golden Age"

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:11:40 -0500

While ESPN toils with the fail that is Titletown (hey, Wipeout's John Anderson gets to anchor Green Bay's edition!), FSN is slowly putting out some awesome programs. As of late the FOX network has turned BDSSP into a sports interview haven, made Ron Artest into a solid interviewer and has added more episodes of the nutshottacular "Sports Science". The network's latest effort proves to be no different as they unveil "Baseball's Golden Age" this Sunday night...

Book Review: Change Up

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:09:02 -0500

When it comes down to it, there is no sport that I enjoy or know more about than baseball. A large reason for that is that I grew up with a father who was and continues to be a passionate New York Yankees fan (you have to remember that the Florida Marlins were not around in my early childhood). I have played organized baseball since I was five years old and continue be a student of the game. Thus, I was very happy when Trina Perrineau over at Rodale Books sent me a book called Change Up: An Oral History of 8 Key Events That Shaped Baseball, without any prior warning that the book was on its way. The press sheet got me excited to crack the book open. Oral accounts of eight pivotal developments in the game of baseball told through stars like A-Rod, Jeter, Ichiro, Ripkin, etc. But honestly, it took me a while of reading before I actually started enjoying the book. In fact, there were times in the first third of the book where I almost put it aside and said, the hell with it. In the end, I am glad that I stuck it out, because some of the later chapters have actually made me a bigger fan of baseball than prior to reading Change Up. Without a doubt, I am more knowledgeable about the sport I love. Change UpI think that a major hurdle that I had to get past was the unorthodox style of authors Larry Burke and Peter Thomas Fornatale. Before opening Change Up, I had never read a book that was 95% narrated by other people. The stories do a little jumping all over the place, which originally made it a little difficult for me to follow. Once I got the hang of it, I was conquering the book at a faster pace and enjoying the stories much more. That being said, I did not get interested in Change Up, until Chapter 4, which was probably my favorite chapter of the book. In fact, if you purchase Change Up and run into the same issues that I initially did, do not allow yourself to give up and put the book aside. Instead, make sure to read Chapter 4, which is titled, The Birth of the Players' Union. As an agent or future agent, it is important for you to understand how and why the MLBPA was created and who was instrumental in its creation. Even if you have no plans of becoming an MLBPA certified agent, the chapter gives great insight into what it takes for a successful players' union to survive in any sport or industry. Maybe you will be more interested in the 1962 Mets (I was not alive at the time) and you quite possibly will find the detailed look into Ball Four enthralling. If so, you should enjoy Change Up from start to finish. If not, I believe that you will enjoy the following chapters on the MLBPA, the DH, Frank Robinson, Cal Ripkin Jr., and finally, Ichiro and his Japanese friends going against all odds and finding success in American baseball.

To All the Girls Who Don't Get Why Sports Matter

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:54:54 -0500

It was a crappy stadium in a hard-to-reach place, but Baltimore still loved Memorial Stadium. Time will not dim the glory of their deeds. Originally that referred to war veterans, but over the years it also meant Unitas, Ripken, Boog, Paul Blair, Jim Palmer, Brooks and Frank Robinson, the ghost to the post and countless others.